CARLOS EIRE: OBAMA’S INGLORIOUS SPEECH

"The second context is the location where the speech was delivered, the so-called Great Theater of Havana, a building stolen from its proper owners and renamed to hide that fact. The Orwellian sleight-of-hand reified by the building’s new name mirrored in many ways what was most significant about the speech: its contrived avoidance of historical facts and present-day realities."

 

Power Line
("NOTE: Interested readers will also want to check out Professor Eire’s “Theater of the absurd in Havana: Dissidents meet with the Great Visitor.' ”)

"Carlos Eire is professor of history at Yale and author of the National Book Award-winning memoir Waiting for Snow in Havana: Confessions of a Cuban Boy. At Babalú Blog Professor Eire wrote a proposed speech for President Obama in Havana that was posted as“The speech never given, the op-ed never published”.  . . ."Seeking the opinion of Professor Eire on the speech Obama actually gave, I invited him to comment on it for Power Line readers. Professor Eire has graciously responded with the essay below; we are grateful to Professor Eire for the opportunity to publish his thoughts on the speech. Professor Eire writes:"

. . . "In Obama’s thinly disguised Marxist narrative there is a constant dialectic between an imperialist power (the United States) and an unjustly exploited subaltern (Cuba), and in this poisoned relationship, the United States is responsible for most of Cuba’s ills.

"The exploitation, said Obama, began with the Spanish-American War: “The blue waters beneath Air Force One once carried American battleships to this island — to liberate, but also to exert control over Cuba.”

"After that, with “control” over Cuba, the United States could not help but behave very badly. “Before 1959,” said Obma, “ some Americans saw Cuba as something to exploit, ignored poverty, enabled corruption.”

"This is pure Castroite propaganda, which all Cubans born after 1959 have had force-fed to them as “history.” And in this false “history,” of course, it is always assumed that the Castro are the heroes who rescued Cubans from all of the exploitation.

"That an American president should parrot such lies tells us a lot about the character of such a president, and the real-world value of his speech to the enslaved Cuban people." . . .

A Gentle Reminder On Who We’re Voting Against

Earl of Taint

Hat tip to American Thinker

Krauthammer: Obama’s ideological holiday in Havana

Charles Krauthammer  "The split-screen told the story: on one side, images of the terror bombing in Brussels; on the other, Barack Obama doing the wave with Raul Castro at a baseball game in Havana. 

"On one side, the real world of rising global terrorism. On the other, the Obama fantasy world in which romancing a geopolitically insignificant Cuba — without an ounce of democracy or human rights yielded in return — is considered a seminal achievement of American diplomacy.

"Cuba wasn’t so much a legacy trip as a vanity trip, vindicating the dorm-room enthusiasms of one’s student days when the Sandinistas were cool, revolution was king and every other friend had a dog named Che.

"When Brussels intervened, some argued that Obama should have cut short his trip and come back home. I disagree. You don’t let three suicide bombers control the itinerary of the American president. Moreover, Obama’s next stop, Argentina, is actually important and had just elected a friendly government that broke from its long and corrupt Peronist past.

"Nonetheless, Obama could have done without the baseball. What kind of message does it send to be yukking it up with Raul even as Belgian authorities are picking body parts off the floor of the Brussels airport?" . . .

OBAMA: 'There's Little Difference Between Communism and Capitalism'...

"Just choose from what works"

. . . "For a more accurate breakdown of how capitalism beats socialism every time, watch the video below." . . .

Infowars  "President Obama has stoked controversy after he suggested to an audience of Argentinian youth that there was no great difference between communism and capitalism and that they should just “choose from what works”."

“ 'So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate,” Obama said.

“ 'Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works,” he added.

"Obama went on to praise Cuba’s socialist system under dictator Raúl Castro, touting the country’s free access to basic education and health care, although he acknowledged that Havana itself “looks like it did in the 1950s” because the economy is “not working”.

"Obama concluded his comments by arguing that a market-based system “has to have a social and moral and ethical and community basis”.

"Reaction to the remarks wasn’t pretty." . . .
Tell me again, why is this man at the top of the presidential popularity list?

Why do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton believe they know more about Islam than Muslim clerics?

"When he said the scriptures command that Muslims strike terror into the hearts of Islam’s enemies, the scriptures backed him up."

Andrew C. McCarthy  "One of the first things I learned concerned the leader of the terror cell, Omar Abdel Rahman, infamously known as the Blind Sheikh. Our government was portraying him as a wanton killer who was lying about Islam by preaching that it summoned Muslims to jihad or holy war. Far from a lunatic, however, he turned out to be a globally renowned scholar—a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium. His area of academic expertise was sharia—Islamic law.

"I immediately began to wonder why American officials from President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno on down, officials who had no background in Muslim doctrine and culture, believed they knew more about Islam than the Blind Sheikh. Then something else dawned on me: the Blind Sheikh was not only blind; he was beset by several other medical handicaps. That seemed relevant. After all, terrorism is hard work. Here was a man incapable of doing anything that would be useful to a terrorist organization—he couldn’t build a bomb, hijack a plane, or carry out an assassination. Yet he was the unquestioned leader of the terror cell. Was this because there was more to his interpretation of Islamic doctrine than our government was conceding?". . .  

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. A graduate of Columbia College, he received his J.D. at New York Law School. For 18 years, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, and from 1993-95 he led the terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Following the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the Justice Department’s command post near Ground Zero. He has also served as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and an adjunct professor at Fordham University’s School of Law and New York Law School. He writes widely for newspapers and journals including National Review, PJ Media, and The New Criterion, and is the author of several books, including Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotages America.

The Theology of Donald Trump

Michael Horton

"Four words that reveal what his followers really believe."

"I am not a politician, but a minister who teaches theology. As a citizen of this great republic, I have convictions about domestic and foreign policy, but none of that qualifies me to join the fray of political experts and pundits. I am qualified, however, to engage the topic of significant support among self-identified “evangelical voters” for Donald Trump and what this means, not for the country but what it suggests about significant segments of the US church.

"While a theological analysis of other candidates would suggest many equally troubling assumptions of their evangelical followers, no candidate is more identified with the word evangelical as is Trump. The loyalty of his self-identified evangelical followers is especially startling to many.

A more recent exponent of a feel-good gospel, Joel Osteen, has called Donald Trump “a friend of our ministry” and “a good man.” Trump has previously tweeted, “Being associated with Joel is my great honor—he’s a fantastic man!”So when in recent months, it has appeared that Trump appeals to a sizable group of evangelicals, it may be less surprising than all the hoopla suggests. Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. hailed him as “one of the greatest visionaries of our time” and a wonderful Christian brother “who reminds me of my dad.” The redoubtable Pat Robertson gushed in an interview with the empire-builder, “You inspire us all.” Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, who has introduced Trump at rallies, says, “We need a strong leader and a problem-solver, hence many Christians are open to a more secular candidate.” . . .

Well, Trump does like both Old and New Testaments equally, and he can find Two Corinthians in the Bible. Somewhere. 

James Comey and Loretta Lynch Hold the Whole Country in Their Hands

Roger L. Simon  "The leading contender for the Democratic Party nomination is under investigation by the FBI on two basic tracks.

"The first is for national security violations regarding her grossly negligent use of a private email server and unsecured BlackBerry (when traveling abroad!) for all her official business as secretary of state, including housing 22 emails on the server deemed so "top secret" that the State Department has refused to make them public.. . . 

"The second, perhaps even more serious, malfeasance is various crimes related to what is popularly known as influence-peddling performed by then-Secretary of State Clinton with foreign nationals and officials in connection with her multi-million, possibly billion, dollar family foundation.  . . .

"This is far and away the most important issue of election 2016. All others pale compared to it. How our government -- FBI and DOJ -- resolves this investigation will affect the very backbone of our country: the rule of law. " . . .

Yet there are those even in the GOP who would possibility vote for Hillary

Wait For The Meaningless Platitudes In The Aftermath Of The Latest Terrorist Attack

"But don’t get too unsettled there is still cause for optimism and hope (not!) – at least the Eiffel Tower is going to get decked out in the Belgian Flag! Of course such a token gesture will be about as effective as the “Je Suis Charlie” nonsense that followed the Paris attacks."

Noisy Room

"Above: Solutions to terror? Eiffel Tower to be lit up in colours of Belgian Flag. What a relief!

"Some people will say this latest attack is unbelievable, and will be asking questions such as why us? The usual platitudes and meaningless twaddle will be doing the rounds. Once the dust has settled the usual media talking heads will be wheeled out, disseminating disinformation and blaming the West.

"The reality is that this latest attack is not unbelievable. This despicable act of terror is believable, inevitable and predictable. Western leaders just don’t get it! The way things are going there will end up being a Europe-wide intifada and the foolish and inept political leaders will still be scratching their stupid heads.

"In his latest platitude, France’s fool in charge Francois Hollande has declared: ‘The fight against terror will be long’. Platitude aside, he’s got that completely wrong. Even if we accept that we are at war with terror, a tactic, the war we’re in will not be long. Thanks to the policies of people like Hollande and his ilk, and his EU, the war will be short and it unfortunately will bring down the Western World just as its perpetrators and enablers intend!" . . .

Remember: this election is mainly about Supreme Court justices!

"If we are going to put Washington on trial this election . . . then the Supreme Court should be at the top of the list, although with the federal bench generally and the hordes of lawyers who feast at our expense on this rotted system."

Make the Supreme Court an Election Issue   . . . "Most nauseating is the spectacle of pundits asking politicians running for federal offices if they will follow "the law of the land" – meaning the decision of the Supreme Court – although all legislative power is granted to Congress, and all power not granted to Congress is reserved to the states.  It is bad enough when regulatory agencies and presidents make law by order.  

"When federal courts do it, then Congress is simply an empty vessel, lacking real power, although it represents the interests of the governed as expressed through elections.

"Why not use the debate over Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court to assert that federal judges do not have the power to interpret the Constitution, void federal laws, or intrude into the rights of state governments?  Why not argue in this election that voters and their elected representatives say what the Constitution means and that the opinions of judges cannot overrule the people and their representatives?  If we are going to put Washington on trial this election – and we should – then the Supreme Court should be at the top of the list, although with the federal bench generally and the hordes of lawyers who feast at our expense on this rotted system." . . .

Camille Paglia: This is why Trump’s winning, and why I won’t vote for Hillary

"GOP needs to wake up and realize Trump is its fault. But the Trump/Clinton death match is a national nightmare."

Ms. Paglia's choice, as you may imagine, is Bernie Sanders.

Salon

. . . "Candidates of both parties were instantly measured against voter expectations of how a president could and should behave in a similar crisis. Meanwhile, it was jarring to see a beaming President Obama relaxing at a Cuban baseball game, while grisly photos of the wrecked terminal and dazed, bloodied victims in Belgium were on steady media feed all over the world.

. . . Hillary Clinton’s Brussels response was basically boilerplate, calling for solidarity with Europe and playing chess with Trump to paint him as a greenhorn and hothead. Bernie Sanders (whom I support and contribute to) had little to say, beyond conveying condolences to the Belgian people, because foreign affairs have unfortunately remained a sideline for him. Neither Sanders nor Martin O’Malley ever went after Hillary’s disastrous record as Secretary of State with the tenacity that they should have—a failure of strategy that has proved costly in the long run.

. . . 

"But a Trump-Hillary death match will be a national nightmare, a race to the bottom for both parties, as Democratic and Republican operatives compete to dig up the most lurid and salacious dirt on both flawed candidates. We’ll be sadistically trapped in an endless film noir, with Trump as Citizen Kane, Don Corleone and Scarface and Hillary as Norma Desmond, Mommie Dearest and the Wicked Witch of the West." . . . 

After her attacks on nearly every other candidate in the race, Ms. Paglia pronounces the Democrat solution is to vote for Bernie Sanders.

Trump's electability problem could drive delegates to nominate a Kasich-Rubio ticket

Silvio Canto, Jr.  
"Before I get a million messages from Trump's supporters saying that I'm part of the establishment or trying to steal his nomination, let me say this:  Trump will be the nominee if he gets 1,237 delegates on the first or any other ballot.   

"Beyond that, let me assure his very passionate supporters that I will support him in November.

"Also, I am not part of any conspiracy nor did Governor Romney suggest that I write this.

"My mission is simple.   I am just a voter who wants to defeat Hillary Clinton and keep a GOP Senate.  I want to support a candidate who will do both.

"As of today, Mr. Trump is not that candidate:" . . .

If You're Pro-Family, You Don't Vote for Trump:

Christians Declare Victory as ABC Cancels Sexed-Up Biblical Drama After Only Two Episodes

Big Government  "In their pre-series hype, ABC spokespersons gushed with enthusiasm over the project. “We’re going to go as far as we can,” said showrunner Chris Brancato, who said that the Old Testament is “violent” and “sex-drenched.”

“ 'It’s one of the world’s first soap operas,” he said.

“ 'From my experience, faith-based people like sex as much as anybody else,” Brancato said. 

“ 'I don’t know that that will necessarily be an impediment.” . . .

"Winter called the series an “epic failure” in terms of both production and marketing, and attributes the show’s demise in part to his council’s “direct private conversations” with some of the biggest backers.

“ 'Some of them had actually sponsored the first show, and we showed them the clips and they backed away from the second episode,” Winter said. “So when those ad dollars leave, the TV network is faced with a very difficult choice. It was an embarrassing decision for them, I believe.' ”. . .